Oh, you need to dig deeper, to understand the semantics and not just the syntax of those APIs.
I didn't say using the source as documentation was convenient, but it is possible, to any degree of detail you want. To wit: given the source code, it is possible to create documentation to any degree of convenience. But, given some instance of external documentation and no source, it is not possible to improve the convenience factor of that documentation to an arbitrary degree. Suggesting what people who donate their time DO is rather like herding cats. Some like coding and others like documenting and some like both. Perhaps instead of an admonition that the project needs better documentation, a question regarding who is willing to contribute to said better documentation is more in order. -----Original Message----- From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org on behalf of John R Pierce Sent: Thu 11/26/2009 3:35 PM To: openssl-users@openssl.org Subject: Re: General question about documentation > Finally, the source code IS the only reliable source of documentation > (assuming you can trust your compiler, OS, and hardware to do "the > right thing"). It isn't the most CONVENIENT, which is why we desire > other forms. > the implementation details of the 250-odd API entry points in libssl.so would tell me very little about how to properly USE those APIs, and in fact, designing an application around my interpretation of the library developers intent would likely lead me down some rabbit holes I'd rather not explore. This is my idea of how open source documentation should be organized and written. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/index.html ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
